[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On international applications of Lojban
- Subject: On international applications of Lojban
- From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@lojban.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 22:34:19 -0500
The following was posted to Auxlang mailing list by Paul Bartlett. I have
been trying for months to figure a way to explain why I support the
European Patent usage of Lojban, but have not been willing to commit
significant resources to selling the idea. Besides having a dictionary to
do, that is ...
This sums up one of my major concerns, as to why Lojban as a community may
not be quite ready for adoption, even if we can show a good and useful
translation of a patent. Maybe people can be looking at what we need to do
in order to be able to promote the use of Lojban other than as a toy or as
a medium of personal expression (both of these are worthwhile in
themselves, but surely are not all that is possible for the language).
>Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:36:50 -0500
>From: Paul O Bartlett <bartlett@SMART.NET>
>Subject: Re: Artificiality, was (Difficulty of Learning Languages)
>
>On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, Kjell Rehnström wrote (very tiny excerpt):
>
>> Where are the teachers?
>
> This brings up a significant problem for the spread and use of
>constructed auxiliary languages. There seem to be two approaches
>to the matter, although these two approaches are not necessarily
>incompatible.
>
> There are those who take a sort of bottom-up approach. People
>should learn IAL X as individuals and club together (if they choose),
>informally or somewhat formally in associations. Thus, it is believed,
>an IAL will spread as time goes by.
>
> Others favor a sort of top-down approach. They adovcate adoption
>of IAL X by some sort of international or quasi-international body.
>One that most frequently comes to mind is the European Union, with its
>staggering costs for translation and interpreting services. There
>could, of course, be other bodies which might conceivably adopt a
>conIAL, such as some agency of the United Nations.
>
> Although I think that the top-down approach would be a marvelous
>thing, it does have a problem: as Kjell said, "Where are the teachers?"
>If some body were to adopt a conIAL, I presume that they would want to
>be able to get up to speed with it relatively quickly and would want
>accuracy in it use. This implies the need for teachers and teaching
>materials. Also, I think it likely that before such an auxlang would
>be adopted, the potential adoptors would want assurance that the
>proposed interlanguage would be up to the job.
>
> Where are the teachers? Well, Esperanto could probably supply many
>of them for instruction in many countries, and I would assess that it
>is adequate for the task (although the supersigned letter definitely
>work to its disfavor). Latin, strictly speaking, of course, is not a
>constructed IAL, but it has been proposed as an international language
>again, once adequate terminology has been added for modern things and
>concepts. There might be enough teachers to do the job, and Latin has
>a proven track record. However, one difficulty with Latin is that I do
>not myself foresee everyday diplomats using it conversationally (where
>a lot of real work gets done) and in formal debates and discussions.
>Then again, one idea is that an auxlang not be used so much in debates
>as an intermediary or so-called pivot language for documents and
>translations.
>
> Are any others of today's proposed (con)IALs up to the job in the
>sense of having enough teachers and being adequate to the task? To be
>honest, I am skeptical. For instance, I like IALA Interlingua, but I
>don't know if there are enough teachers and adequate didactic materials
>in enough languages to be up to the job. I really doubt that at this
>time any other conIAL has much of a realistic chance for consideration
>for top-down adoption, whatever its respective merits might be. Ido I
>also like, and Occidental is interesting, but I honestly doubt that
>either of them has much chance at all for a top-down adoption. Other
>languages? I don't think so.
>
> Thus, I think that the only conIAL with much likelihood for formal
>or quasi-formal adoption is Esperanto, with Interlingua a distant
>second. And one of the major hurdles, for Esperanto, Interlingua, or
>XYZ, is that so many people simply do not take seriously at all the
>very idea of a constructed auxiliary.
>
> Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with bottom-up, and
>nothing says that an auxlang has to be adopted formally for it still to
>be useful. But, as Mike Farris has pointed out, we have yet to see any
>conIAL, including Esperanto, used much for business contracts, other
>commercial dealings, scientific papers, or whatever (although
>Interlingua was once used partially for scientific abstracts). Thus,
>all of them remain largely in the realm of hobby. Whether the
>bottom-up approach will be adequate in the long run reamins to be seen.
>
>--
>Paul <bartlett@smart.net>
>..........................................................
>Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
>Keyserver (0xF383C8F9) or WWW for PGP public key
>Home Page: http://www.smart.net/~bartlett
----
lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.